N4G Admin & Community Manager .::. I read every PM, I just may not respond to every PM.

Malware Notices? We are Aware, and Don't Worry

Once again we are getting notices for malware. These notices are tied to other sites we link to, which is why our 'clickout' links are being flagged by Google. , This is how it works:

1. Tons of sites post links to N4G. 2. N4G links to those sites. 3. One or two sites over time implement really bad ads with malware in them (oftentimes after being sold to a third-party who does this on purpose). 4. Google detects this and also flags sites who link to those sites.

The developers are looking into fixing this as usual.

Thank you for your patience and please feel free to click through the stories if you are comfortable enough. I understand if you aren't because of the warning. Please note that it will soon be rectified without us changing anything on our end other than removing links to the sites that have been flagged.

I agree. I mean some of the articles that get approved are horrendous, but the home site of the article is even more horrendous. Some of them look like they were built in the late 90s with pop up windows overlapping pop up windows.

1. The moderation staff try to do as little curating as possible. The point of N4G has and still is about being as community driven as possible. It is unlikely this will change anytime soon.

2. The sites that caused this issue haven't posted content in months on one and years on the others. While many sites use a ton of annoying as heck ads, I can't get behind the idea that they do it maliciously, just greedily.

3. N4G does not dictate how one should handle their site, only what is allowed on N4G based on our criteria and guidelines. We are not in the business of telling people the right way to do things. If you don't like a site for whatever reason, then don't click out to their site or comment on their submissions. By doing either, you are supporting that which you dislike and encouraging them to continue to use those ad tactics or the like. Even commenting to say you hate the site gives them more heat and thereby visibility.

Completely agree and the moderators are clearly to blame for oking sites that have malicious adware I'm sorry but people need to start only accepting sites that don't have this garbage slider crap or malicious material.

What? Do you think the moderation staff has a network of services running to constantly check if every site that connects to us has any malware on it? I'm not sure you understand how it works. One day they could be 100 percent clean and the next littered with malware. Only constant checking like what Google does can detect it. And when Google tells us, then we handle it, like we are now. And, the sites we're being informed of haven't posted news in months or years, it's all old links.

***As moderators isn't it your authority that okays or doesnt okay which sites & articles are posted on N4g.com? ***

No. The rules dictate what is okay and what isn't. We do our best to adhere to those rules and nothing else. Our authority is tied to those rules. There is nothing in the rules about banning sites because it looks like they could have malware or even for having a warning once or twice. If we see a submission with a warning, we'll fail it and leave a report why. If it continues to go unfixed, that's when we may consider a ban, since it might look like the owner of the site is not looking to fix the issue. But, not until then.

*** isn't it also true that as a Moderator w/experiene dealing with this particular issue that you also gaining some expertise and awareness on which sites could be malware and which ones aren't? ***

As a Web developer, which I am above all else professionally, this sort of thinking will only lead you to negatively impacting way more legit sites without malware than it would sites with actual malware. Other than actually getting malware warnings, what are you asking me to look out for? The type of ads? The number of ads? How professional the site looks? None of that will tell you if there is malware. Malware comes in many forms from a wide array of sources and even comes from 100% legit ad companies utilized by tens of thousands of Web sites every day.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the sites we are being flagged for haven't even posted to N4G in years. When they were active, they didn't have malware. It's since they've become inactive, and likely were sold to another person/company, that malware was detected. So, how do I handle that? Are you saying I should check every site in the system, literally tens of thousands of sites, each month? Week? It only takes a line of code and an update that can take a few seconds to put malware up. And it can happen at any time.

You REALLY believe more than 0.1% of people who use adblock do so because of malicious ads? No, those 99.9% are just trying to avoid ads without a second thought to anything but avoiding annoyances. Great rationalization though.

To be clear, to each their own. Wanna avoid pesky ads? I completely understand. But do so with integrity, not self deception.

It could send you to Forbes.com or Malware.com either way the N4G clickout link will be flagged, until they petition Google to get removed. It's not that N4G has malware, and it's not that all the end points do either, it's that the domain for the clickout link was linked to a site that did so Google flagged the domain of the clickout link regardless of where it try's sending you. Hence all sites you click on come up with warning.

It's not 'every website'. Google has flagged every clickout link because those are what links to those other sites. Google doesn't just flag those specific links, they flag every single one of them that's a clickout. Annoying, but not really my place to tell Google how to protect its users.

I'm not a very tech savvy person so I didn't quite understand the nature of the problem. Which explains why it was hard to grasp for me. However I do read and added my comment. Thanks to the replies of people looking to explain further I understand it now. Your comment on the other hand adds nothing to help me.

People use those because they are valuable right now (and AdSense recommends using them for maximum ad revenue whenever they get a chance). I use banners and square/skyscrapers on my site but they are off to the side and the content is clearly, cleanly, available for the readers without ad obstruction. I wish more sites would do it this way. Nothing more annoying that reading an article and having a popup block what I was reading and having to wait for the pre-roll to end so I can click X.

This is the way the site I write for does it too. No pop up ads just ads on the side and and at the bottom of content. Nothing worse than constant pop up adds or those stupid sites that make you click through pages and pages for two sentences and loads of ads. N4g staff need to be hotter on submissions and block sites that have malware ads.

I never use any ad that blocks the body of an article, I personally think it's unfair to the person who enters my website. That's coming from someone who cares more about the content than the revenue, not many of them around apparently.

Plus it really turns people off your website if you have things jumping in the way. If people start playing hard ball with their ads, then your not forcing people into your ads...your forcing people to give up on your site.

Nothing you can really do about this, not N4G's fault. But it could push towards better screening when allowing websites to submit articles. Why not have a process where the website wanting to submit articles must contact N4G for permission, giving them a chance to look over the website and make a fair decision on its credibility and security. You could also take a look at the moderators, who the majority of do a great job(there's a few with other agendas I think) reporting stories. For starters, get more of them.

And you're not considering the amount of websites there are, the amount of websites that are created each day, and the amount of submissions that pass through here each day. Coupled with a small moderation team comprised of volunteers with day jobs, your siggestion is still impractical.

Please, just save me the drama. The only thing that has since changed in the last two days is the removal of the two sidebar floaty ads plus the pop under. Otherwise there are still too many ads. Presently there are 12 fixed units AND one massive floating Infolinks unit. http://i.imgur.com/SvNm3YJ.... As some of the ad providers there are a bit sketchy, I'll avoid the site all together.

Oh save it, YinYang. They have complete control over how many ad units can be displayed, as well as who they display ads with (e.g. AdSense, BSA, Infolinks). http://i.imgur.com/SvNm3YJ.... As you can see, there are 12 fixed ads and 1 floating ad. That is beyond unacceptable for any site and some of those ad providers are CRAP.

In AdSense for instance you can filter by category to remove the likelihood of a malware laden ad slipping through the cracks, even though they have a pretty strict ad policy vs say infolinks or something. They can also use BSA and manually approve each ad request.

Stop posting links from malware sites. The lack of editorial curation makes N4G a gutter for fanboy and malicious trash. Half of these so called articles are links to Amazon and advertising promos anyways.